Treaty-Making Procedure in the United Kingdom

1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 655-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B. Stewart

The power to conclude and ratify treaties in the United Kingdom is one of the few remaining prerogatives of the crown. We may search in vain for constitutional laws, provisions, and decrees specifying the required formalities incident to the negotiation, conclusion, and ratification of treaties by Great Britain, because these matters are not governed by any act of Parliament or by any written regulations. British constitutional law on these points has not been embodied in statute and rests upon the common law alone. Thus there is no express definition of the treaty-making power and no reference to the authority by whom the treaty-making power may be exercised. Nevertheless, it may be said that under British constitutional law, which in this instance is common law, the authority to make treaties is vested absolutely in the crown as the unquestioned prerogative of sovereignty.

1979 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-285
Author(s):  
Wilberforce

I was not surprised when, from several alternative subjects, you chose, as the title of my Lecture, the need for a Constitution in Britain. Those of us without a written constitution are indeed, a select club—New Zealand, Israel, the United Kingdom.I will start with a quotation from Lord Salmon. In a recent lecture, he said: In this country [U.K.] we have an unwritten constitution. I have always regarded this as a blessing and never agreed with the theoretical objections to it. It is superbly flexible and above all it has stood the test of time. It works—and works admirably. But I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be wise to evolve, not an elaborate written constitution but perhaps the equivalent of a modern Bill of Rights. A statute which should lay down our basic freedoms, provide for their preservation and enact that it could not be repealed save by, say, a 75% majority of both Houses of Parliament.One can recognize in this passage the views of an eminent common lawyer, believing in the strength and potentialities of the common law as a flexible instrument, in, of course, the right hands: of one who believes deeply in human freedom, and who is concerned about the threat to it: who desires an explicit definition of the basic liberties and who believes that these can be protected by a sufficiently strong, entrenched, legal system. In this he undoubtedly reflects the views of many people, probably of the majority of ordinary men.


1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-564
Author(s):  
Dawn Oliver

First, I want to express my gratitude and sense of honour in being invited to deliver the Lionel Cohen lecture for 1995. The relationship between the Israeli and the British legal systems is a close and mutually beneficial one, and we in Britain in particular owe large debts to the legal community in Israel. This is especially the case in my field, public law, where distinguished academics have enriched our academic literature, notably Justice Zamir, whose work on the declaratory judgment has been so influential. Israeli courts, too, have made major contributions to the development of the common law generally and judicial review very notably.In this lecture I want to discuss the process of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, and to explore some of the difficulties that lie in the way of reform. Some quite radical reforms to our system of government — the introduction of executive agencies in the British civil service, for instance—have been introduced without resort to legislation. There has been a spate of reform to local government and the National Health Service.


1902 ◽  
Vol 36 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 417-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Nicoll

The liability of the employer to compensate his employees, as well as other persons, for injuries sustained through his fault, may be traced from an early period in the world's history in the Common Law of various countries.For example, by the Jewish Law, said to have been promulgated about the year 1500 B.C., if a master were the means of causing the loss, either intentionally or unintentionally, of the eye or of the tooth of his slave, he was bound to let him go free for his eye or his tooth's sake. Again, according to the same law, if an employer allowed his ox to gore either his servant or a stranger, he was required to pay various compensations to the injured if he survived, or to his relatives in the event of the injury being followed by death.


1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-248 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractWithin the common law world, the use of the term informed consent implies the American doctrine. Informed consent as a doctrine is not part of the law in the United Kingdom. However, it is possible to predict a way forward in disclosure cases yet to be heard in the courts of the United Kingdom. These predictions are based on current developments in the common law in the United Kingdom as well as those in Canada and Australia, on the European convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and on trends within the medical profession itself in the light of the Bolam test.


2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier García Oliva

The enactment of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is the most recent legal mechanism developed to protect believers, beliefs and religious feelings in the United Kingdom. Despite the recognition of a certain degree of overlap between the different categories, this article proposes a broad distinction between legal devices which protect believers and those which safeguard beliefs and religious feelings. The common law offence of blasphemy is analysed, taking into consideration the response of both the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The endorsement of the English law of blasphemy by Strasbourg is particularly relevant. Furthermore, this paper focuses on different instruments that, throughout the last few decades, have been articulated to protect the faithful, such as the crimes of religiously aggravated offences and the offence of incitement to religious hatred.


1975 ◽  
Vol 19 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 52-65
Author(s):  
Margaret Rogers

It is perhaps desirable to start off by reminding ourselves as to what generally is the law which is applicable to bankers in Kenya. We know that the sources of Kenya law as set out in the Judicature Act, 19671 are:“;(a) the Constitution;(b) subject thereto, all other written laws, including the Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom, cited in Part I of the Schedule to this Act, modified in accordance with Part II of that Schedule;(c) subject thereto and so far as the same do not extend or apply, the substance of the common law, the doctrines of equity and the statutes of general application in force in England on the 12th August, 1897, and the procedure and practice observed in courts of justice in England at that date:…”;


Author(s):  
Paul Omar

Malaysia and Singapore are members of the common law family and have 'inherited' their company and insolvency law from models in use in the United Kingdom with influences from Australia. It is the purpose of this article to outline the law in relation to cross-border insolvency, particularly the winding up of foreign companies, the co-operation provisions in bankruptcy and insolvency as well as more recent moves to redevelop insolvency through UNCITRAL and Asian Development Bank initiatives.


2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-189
Author(s):  
Adrienne Ho

Whether a debtor is an individual or a sophisticated financial institution, a common issue that arises is whether its insolvency alters the rights of the parties with whom the debtor has entered into contracts. Could the non-defaulting party to the contract, on the basis of the debtor’s insolvency, terminate or amend the contract? Could it demand accelerated payment? Many parties preserve contractual rights, through what are commonly known as ipso facto clauses, to terminate and amend contracts or to demand an accelerated payment in the event that a counterparty to the contract becomes insolvent. Despite recent amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), the validity of ipso facto clauses, outside the context of derivatives contracts, is an issue that has not been thoroughly addressed in the Canadian literature. This article will trace the anti-deprivation rule in England, culminating in the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s leading case: Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd. v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd. and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. It will then explore to what extent recent amendments to the BIA and the CCAA have displaced the common law rule in Canada. Both the BIA and the CCAA have nullified ipso facto clauses in some but not all situations, the most notable exceptions being cases involving corporate bankruptcies and receiverships. This article will conclude with a discussion of the codified exceptions to the common law principles and whether the Canadian jurisprudence might incorporate some of the modifications to the anti-deprivation rule introduced by Lord Collins in Belmont.


Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eesa A Fredericks

This series of two articles provides a comparative overview of the position in the common-law conflict of laws in respect of the contractual capacity of natural persons. The comparative study is undertaken in order to provide guidelines for the future development of South African private international law. Reference is primarily made to case law and the opinions of academic authors. The legal position in the law of the United Kingdom, as the mother jurisdiction in Europe, is investigated in part I. Although Scotland is a mixed civil/common-law jurisdiction, the situation in that part of the United Kingdom is also discussed.Part II will deal with the rules and principles of private international law in respect of contractual capacity in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand), North America (the common-law provinces of Canada and the United States of America), Asia (India, Malaysia and Singapore) and Africa (Ghana and Nigeria). Part II also contains a comprehensive summary of the legal position in the common-law countries, followed by ideas for the reform of South African private international law in this regard.


1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Robin Cooke

In this address to the UNDR commemorative seminar in April 1998 Lord Cooke speaks of human rights, his current judicial roles and the prospects for a common law of the world. Lord Cooke discusses the importance of human rights law in both substance and implementation. The author reports on the process of implementing constitutional law and human rights in New Zealand, Samoa, the Republic of Fiji, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document